Advertisement

Values in transformational sustainability science: four perspectives for change

  • Andra-Ioana Horcea-MilcuEmail author
  • David J. Abson
  • Cristina I. Apetrei
  • Ioana Alexandra Duse
  • Rebecca Freeth
  • Maraja Riechers
  • David P. M. Lam
  • Christian Dorninger
  • Daniel J. Lang
Special Feature: Original Article Theoretical traditions in social values for sustainability

Abstract

Despite the normative nature of sustainability, values and their role in sustainability transformations are often discussed in vague terms, and when concrete conceptualizations exist, they widely differ across fields of application. To provide guidance for navigating the complexity arising from the various conceptualizations and operationalization of values, here, we differentiate four general perspectives of how and where values are important for transformation related sustainability science. The first perspective, surfacing implicit values, revolves around critical reflection on normative assumptions in scientific practices. Sustainability transformations concern fundamental ethical questions and are unavoidably influenced by assumptions sustainability scientists hold in their interactions with society. The second perspective, negotiating values, is related to the values held by different actors in group decision processes. Developing and implementing solution options to sustainability problems requires multiple values to be accounted for in order to increase civic participation and social legitimacy. The third perspective, eliciting values, focuses on the ascription of values to particular objects or choices related to specific sustainability challenges, for example, valuations of nature. The fourth perspective, transforming through values, highlights the dynamic nature and transformational potential of values. Value change is complex but possible, and may generate systemic shifts in patterns of human behaviours. Explicit recognition of these four interconnected values perspectives can help sustainability scientists to: (1) move beyond general discussions implying that values matter; (2) gain an awareness of the positionality of one’s own values perspective when undertaking values related sustainability research; and (3) reflect on the operationalizations of values in different contexts.

Keywords

Sustainability transformation Transdisciplinarity Value negotiation Eliciting values Value shift 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Moritz Engbers for an inspiring discussion on Perspective 1. This research was supported by the Volkswagenstiftung and the Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kultur funded project ‘Leverage Points for Sustainable Transformations: Institutions, People and Knowledge’ (Grant Number A112269). We are also grateful to two reviewers for critical and helpful comments that have much improved the paper.

References

  1. Abson DJ, Termansen M (2011) Valuing ecosystem services in terms of ecological risks and returns. Conserv Biol 25:250–258Google Scholar
  2. Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Baumgärtner S, FischeraJ, Hanspach J, Härdtle W, Heinrichs H, Klein AM, Lang DJ, Martens P, Walmsley D (2014) Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecol Econ 103:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J, Newig J, Schomerus T, Vilsmaier U, von Wehrden H, Abernethy P, Ives CD, Jager NW, Lang DJ (2017) Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46:30–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arias-Arévalo P, Gómez-Baggethun E, Martín-López B, Pérez-Rincón M (2018) Widening the evaluative space for ecosystem services: a taxonomy of plural values and valuation methods. Environ Values 27:29–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armitage D, Marschke M, Plummer R (2008) Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Glob Environ Change 18:86–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Axelrod R, Hamilton WD (1981) The evolution of cooperation. Science 211(4489):1390–1396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett EM, Cramer W, Begossi A, Cundill G, Díaz D, Egoh NG, Geijzendorffer IR, Krug CB, Lavorel S, Lazos E, Louis L, Martín-López B, Meyfroidt P, Mooney HA, Nel LN, Pascual U, Payet K, Pérez Harguindeguy N, Peterson GD, Prieur-Richard A, Reyers B, Roebeling P, Seppelt R, Solan M, Tschakert P, Tscharntke T, TurnerII BL, Verburg PH, Viglizzo EV, White PCL, Woodward G (2015) Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:76–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blaikie N (2008) Approaches to social enquiry. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown TC (1984) The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Econ 60:231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christie I, Richard G, Hejnowicz AP (2019a) Sustainability and the common good: catholic social teaching and “integral ecology” as contributions to a framework of social values for sustainability transitions. Sustain Sci (in review) Google Scholar
  11. Christie M, Martin-Lopez B, Church A, Siwicka E, Szymonczyk P, Keune H, Sauterel JM, Kretsch C (2019b) Inclusive valuation of nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES Europe and Central Asia assessment. Sustain Sci (in review) Google Scholar
  12. Cornell S, Berkhout F, Tuinstra W, Tàbara JD, JägerJ, Chabay I, de Wit B, Langlais R, Mills D, Moll P, Otto IM, Petersen A, Pohl C, van Kerkhoff L (2013) Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change. Environ Sci Policy 28:60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. D’Alisa G, Demaria F, Kallis G (eds) (2014) Degrowth: a vocabulary for a new era. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R (2005) Environmental values. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:335–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fazey I, Schäpke N, Caniglia G, Patterson J, Patterson J, Hultman J, van Mierlo B, Säwe F, Wiek A, Wittmayer JM, Aldunce P, Al Waer H, Battacharya N, Bradbury H, Carmen E, Colvin J, Cvitanovic C, D’Souza M, Gopel M, Goldstein B, Hämäläinen T, Harper G, Henfry T, Hodgson A, Howden MS, Kerr A, Klaes M, Lyon C, Midgley G, Moser S, Mukherjee N, Müller K, O’Brien K, O’Connell DA, Olsson P, Page G, Reed MS, Searle B, Silvestri G, Spaiser V, Strasser T, Tschakert P, Uribe-Calvo N, Waddell S, Rao-William J, Wise R, Wolstenholme R, Woods M, Wyborn C (2018) Ten essentials for action oriented and second order energy transitions, transformations and climate change research. Energy Res Soc Sci 40:54–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer J, Dyball R, Fazey I, Gross C, Dovers S, Ehrlich PR, Brulle RJ, Christensen C, Borden RJ (2012) Human behavior and sustainability. Front Ecol Environ 10:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fulton DC, Manfredo MJ, Lipscomb J (1996) Wildlife value orientations: a conceptual and measurement approach. Hum Dimens Wildl 1:24–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gómez-Baggethun E, de Groot R, Lomas PL, Montes C (2010) The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol Econ 69:1209–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gorissen L, Spira F, Meynaerts E, Valkering P, Frantzeskaki N (2018) Moving towards systemic change? Investigating acceleration dynamics of urban sustainability transitions in the Belgian City of Genk. J Clean Prod 173:171–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gowdy JM (1997) The board of regents of the university of Wisconsin system the value of biodiversity: markets, society, and ecosystems. Land Econ 7340:25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gunton RM, van Asperen EN, Basden A, Bookless D, Araya Y, Hanson DR, Goddard MA, Otieno G, Jones GO (2017) Beyond ecosystem services: valuing the invaluable. Trends Ecol Evol 32:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hausknost D, Gaube V, Haas W, Smetschka B, Lutz J, Singh JS, Schmid M (2016) Society can’t move so much as a chair!—systems, structures and actors in social ecology. In: Haberl H, Fischer-Kowalski M, Krausmann F, Winiwarter V (eds) Social ecology: society-nature relations across time and space. Springer, New York, pp 125–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Horcea-Milcu AI, Abson DJ, Dorresteijn I, Loos J, Hanspach J, Fischer J (2017) The role of coevolutionary development and value change debt in navigating transitioning cultural landscapes: the case of Southern Transylvania. J Environ Plan Manag 61:800–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hummel HGK, van Houcke J, Nadolski RJ, van der Hiele T, Kurvers H, Löhr A (2011) Scripted collaboration in serious gaming for complex learning: effects of multiple perspectives when acquiring water management skills. Br J Educ Technol 42:1029–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. IPBES - Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (2015) Preliminary guide regarding diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem functions and servicesGoogle Scholar
  26. Ingold K, Varone F (2012) Treating policy brokers seriously: evidence from the climate policy. J Public Adm Res Theory 22(2):319–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ives CD, Kendal D (2014) The role of social values in the management of ecological systems. J Environ Manag 144:67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ives CD, Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Dorninger C, Klaniecki K, Fischer J (2018) Reconnecting with nature for sustainability. Sustain Sci 13:1389–1397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B, Anderberg S, Baier M, Clark E, Hickler T, Hornborg A, Kronsell A, Lövbrand E, Persson J (2011) Structuring sustainability science. Sustain Sci 6:69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Katsaliaki K, Mustafee N (2012) A survey of serious games on sustainable development. In: Proceedings of the winter simulation conference, WSC’12. pp 136:1–136:13Google Scholar
  31. Kendal D, Raymond CM (2019) Understanding pathways to shifting people’s values over time in the context of social–ecological systems. Sustain Sci (this issue) Google Scholar
  32. Kenter JO, O’Brien L, Hockley N, Ravenscroft N, Fazey I, Irvine KN, Reed MS, Christie M, Brady E, Bryce R, Church A (2015) What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecol Econ 111:86–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kenter JO, Bryce R, Christie M, Cooper N, Hockley N, Irvine KN, Fazey I, O'Brien L, Orchard-Webb J, Ravenscroft N, Raymond CM, Reed MS, Tett P, Watson V (2016) Shared values and deliberative valuation: future directions. Ecosyst Serv 21:358–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kiser LL, Ostrom E (1982) The three worlds of action: a metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In: Ostrom E (ed) Strategies of political inquiry. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 179–222Google Scholar
  35. Kumar M, Kumar P (2008) Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol Econ 64(4):808–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7:25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lang DJ, Wiek A, von Wehrden H (2017) Bridging divides in sustainability science. Sustain Sci 12:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leventon J, Fleskens L, Claringbould H, Schwilch G, Hessel R (2016) An applied methodology for stakeholder identification in transdisciplinary research. Sustain Sci 11:763–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki N, Thissen W (2011) A transition research perspective governance for sustainability. In: Jaeger C, Tàbara JD, Jaeger J (eds) European research on sustainable development. Springer, Berlin, pp 73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Manfredo MJ, Bruskotter JT, Teel TL, Fulton D, Schwartz SH, Arlinghaus R, Oishi S, Uskul AK, Redford K, Kitayama S, Sullivan L (2017a) Why social values cannot be changed for the sake of conservation. Conserv Biol 31:772–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Manfredo MJ, Bruskotter JT, Teel TL, Fulton D, Oishi S, Uskul AK, Redford K, Schwartz SH, Arlinghaus R, Kitayama S, Sullivan L (2017b) Revisiting the challenge of intentional value shift: reply to Ives and Fischer. Conserv Biol 31:1486–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McAlpine C, Seabrook LM, Ryan JG, Feeney JF, Ripple WJ, Ehrlich AH, Ehrlich PR (2015) Transformational change: creating a safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 20(1):56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Meadows D (1999) Leverage points: places to intervene in a system. The Sustainability Institute, HartlandGoogle Scholar
  44. Medema W, Furber A, Adamowski J, Zhou Q, Mayer I (2016) Exploring the potential impact of serious games on social learning and stakeholder collaborations for transboundary watershed management of the St. Lawrence River Basin. Water 8:175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Milcu A, Hanspach J, Abson D, Fischer J (2013) Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol Soc 18:44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miller TR (2013) Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspectives and research trajectories. Sustain Sci 8:279–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L, Kriebel D, Loorbach D (2014) The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 9:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moon K, Blackman D (2014) A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists. Conserv Biol 28:1167–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Newig J, Fritsch O (2009) Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level - and effective? Environ Policy Gov 19:197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Norgaard RB (2010) Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol Econ 69:1219–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. O’Brien K (2018) Is the 1.5 °C target possible? exploring the three spheres of transformation. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 31:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ostrom E (2011) Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Stud J 39:7–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ostrom E, Cox M (2010) Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environ Conserv 37:451–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Page GG, Wise RM, Lindenfeld L, Moug P, Hodgson A, Wyborn C, Fazey I (2016) Co-designing transformation research: lessons learned from research on deliberate practices for transformation. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 20:86–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Parodi O (2018) Sustainable development: a matter of truth and love. In: Parodi O, Tamm K (eds) Personal sustainability: exploring the far side of sustainable development. Routledge, New York, pp 65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Parodi O, Tamm K (2018) Personal sustainability: exploring the far side of sustainable development. Routledge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S, Pataki G, Roth E, Stenseke M, Watson RT, Başak Dessane E, Islar M, Kelemen E, Maris V, Quaas M, Subramanian SM, Wittmer H, Adlan A, Ahn S, Al-Hafedh YS, Amankwah E, Asah ST, Berry P, Bilgin A, Breslow SJ, Bullock C, Cáceres D, Daly-Hassen H, Figueroa E, Golden CD, Gómez-Baggethun E, González-Jiménez D, Houdet J, Keune H, Kumar R, Ma K, May PH, Mead A, O’Farrell P, Pandit R, Pengue W, Pichis-Madruga R, Popa F, Preston S, Pacheco-Balanza D, Saarikoski H, Strassburg BB, van den Belt M, Verma M, Wickson F, Yagi N (2017) Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26–27:7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Polanyi M (1958) Personal knowledge. Towards a post-critical philosophy. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  59. Popa F, Guillermin M, Dedeurwaerdere T (2014) A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: from complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures 65:45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rawluk A, Ford R, Anderson N, Williams K (2019) Exploring multiple dimensions of values and valuing: a conceptual framework for mapping and translating values for research and practice. Sustain Sci (this issue) Google Scholar
  61. Raymond CM, Kenter J (2016) Transcendental values and the valuation and management of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 21:241–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Raymond IJ, Raymond CM (2019) Positive psychology perspectives on social values and their application to intentionally delivered sustainability interventions. Sustain Sci (in review) Google Scholar
  63. Raymond CM, Fazey I, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Robinson GM, Evely AC (2010) Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J Environ Manag 91:1766–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Raymond CM, Kenter J, Turner N, Alexander K (2014) Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 107:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Reed M, Evely A, Cundill G, Fazey I, Glass J, Laing A, Newig J, Parrish B, Prell C, Raymond CM, Stringer LC (2010) What is social learning? Ecol Soc 15:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ruppert-Winkel C, Arlinghaus R, Deppisch S, Eisenack K, Gottschlich D, Hirschl B, Matzdorf B, Mölders T, Padmanabhan M, Selbmann K, Ziegler R, Plieninger T (2015) Characteristics, emerging needs, and challenges of transdisciplinary sustainability science: experiences from the German Social-Ecological Research Program. Ecol Soc 20(3):13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sacks S (2018) Sustainability without the I-sense is nonsense Inner ‘technologies’ for a viable future and the inner dimension of sustainability. In: Parodi O, Tamm K (eds) Personal sustainability: exploring the far side of sustainable development. Routledge, New York, pp 171–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schmieg G, Meyer E, Schrickel I, Herberg J, Caniglia G, Vilsmaier Ulli, Laubichler M, Hörl E, Lang D (2017) Modeling normativity in sustainability: a comparison of the sustainable development goals, the Paris agreement, and the papal encyclical. Sustain Sci 13(3):785–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schumpeter JA (1954) History of economic analysis. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  70. Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 25:1–65Google Scholar
  71. Schwartz SH (2012) An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Read Psychol Cult 2:1–18Google Scholar
  72. Seidl R, Brand FS, Stauffacher M, Krütli P, Le QB, Spörri A, Meylan G, Moser C, González MB, Scholz RW (2013) Science with society in the anthropocene. Ambio 42:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Spangenberg JH (2011) Sustainability science: a review, an analysis and some empirical lessons. Environ Conserv 38:275–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stern PC (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56:407–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tadaki M, Sinner J, Chan KMA (2017) Making sense of environmental values: a typology of concepts. Ecol Soc 22(1):7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEBGoogle Scholar
  77. Tschakert P, Tuana N, Westskog H, Koelle B, Afrika A (2016) TCHANGE: the role of values and visioning in transformation science. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 20:21–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Turner RK, Paavola J, Cooper P, Farber S, Jessamy V, Georgiou S (2003) Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol Econ 46:493–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Van den Bosch S, Rotmans J (2008) Deepening, broadening and scaling up: a framework for steering transition experiments. Knowl Cent Sustain Syst Innov Transit 3–64Google Scholar
  80. Van Riper C, Winkler-Schor S, Stamberger L, Keller R, Braito M, Raymond C, Eriksson M, Golebie E, Johnson D (2019) Integrating multi-scale values and pro-environmental behavior in a protected area. Sustain Sci (in review) Google Scholar
  81. Van Kerkhoff LE, Lebel L (2015) Coproductive capacities: rethinking science-governance relations in a diverse world. Ecol Soc 20:14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Verplanken B, Trafimow D, Khusid IK, Holland RW, Steentjes GM (2009) Different selves, different values: effects of self-construals on value activation and use. Eur J Soc Psychol 39:909–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Villido I (2018) Awareness as the new paradigm for personal sustainability. A practitioner’ s perspective on the sustainability transition. In: Parodi O, Tamm K (eds) Personal sustainability: exploring the far side of sustainable development. Routledge, New York, pp 136–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wegner G, Pascual U (2011) Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: a multidisciplinary critique. Glob Environ Change 21:492–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Westley F, McGowan K, Tjörnbo O (2017) The evolution of social innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wiek A, Talwar S, O’Shea M, Robinson J (2014) Toward a methodological scheme for capturing societal effects of participatory sustainability research. Res Eval 23:117–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wittmayer JM, Schäpke N (2014) Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustain Sci 9:483–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wuelser G, Pohl C (2016) How researchers frame scientific contributions to sustainable development: a typology based on grounded theory. Sustain Sci 11:789–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andra-Ioana Horcea-Milcu
    • 1
    Email author
  • David J. Abson
    • 1
  • Cristina I. Apetrei
    • 1
  • Ioana Alexandra Duse
    • 1
  • Rebecca Freeth
    • 1
  • Maraja Riechers
    • 1
  • David P. M. Lam
    • 1
  • Christian Dorninger
    • 1
  • Daniel J. Lang
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of SustainabilityLeuphana University LüneburgLüneburgGermany

Personalised recommendations